Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimony and unexplained delays undermine prosecution's case, supporting acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey, the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment dated 15.09.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 1823 of 2022, State vs. Anand Kumar and Others , under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, whereby the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 have been acquitted by Court below of the charges framed against them.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.05.2018, at about 5:30/5:45 p.m., the complainant Sanjay Kumar was going at his work place, as usual, as soon as he reached near the house of accused persons, all the accused persons (opposite parties 2 to 4) surrounded the complainant, opposite party 4 Anand Kumar took out his knife and by brandishing his knife remarked that he will not leave him alive, at this, other accused persons, (opposite parties 2 to 4) started beating the complainant with kicks and fist, and then opposite party 4 tried to give a knife blow on the chest of the complainant, the complainant saved his chest by forwarding his left hand, at this, he received serious injuries on his left hand. On hearing the screams of complainant, the witnesses, Jagvir, Anil Kumar, Krishna Kumar and Vipin Kumar came there and saw the incident, thereafter, all the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 ran away from the spot by extending threats. The injured complainant approached Police Station Tajganj for registration of the FIR but his report was not lodged. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint in Court.

4. On the aforementioned complaint of appellant against the accused persons, Complaint Case No. 1485 of 2018, under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra was registered. After recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Agra, summoned the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 to face trial under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC.

5. The accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 appeared before the jurisdictional magistrate. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing both the parties, charges were framed against them on 30.07.2019, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced two witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Sanjay Kumar (the complainant) and P.W.-2 Dr. K.C. Dhakar (Doctor who had medico legally examined the complainant).

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons (opposite parties 2 to 4) were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the charges as alleged by the prosecution and claimed for trial. They stated that P.W.-1 has given false evidence against them on account of previous enmity of egress/ingress regarding the pathway.

8. By the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2025, Court below has acquitted the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the charges under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by Court below, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the complainant-appellant.

10. Mr. Jata Shankar Pandey, the learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment is illegal and erroneous and, therefore, liable to be set-aside by this Court. He further submits that Court below without appreciating the evidence adduced by the injured complainant-appellant, has illegally and erroneously, acquitted the accused-opposi